If issues and rights such as these were specifically addressed in
published document that is intended to clarify the application of
APL2, would that satisfy some or all of your concerns?

I agree that publishing a clarification document is a good thing.

Lots of licenses provide clairification documents, which help non-jurists
understand what is meant by the licence. However, such clarification
documents typically just give examples and never lessen the requirements
of a licence.

Same for the APL2: A clarification document is what it is, a separate
document. And therefore does not alter the APL2.

If the APL2 states requirements, these requirements are there.

If an additional clarification document tries to lessen these requirements
(e.g.: allowing teachers to use Aldor _and_ get salary), it does not and
cannot effectively lessen the requirements of the APL2. A clairification
document can at most show the good will of the ASO to not make use of
their APL2-given rights until they decide otherwise.

If a teacher uses Aldor to give lectures while getting a pay-check for
this task, he is breaking the APL2 (in the current version). "Good will of
the ASO" regardless of whether in written or non-written form may save him
from punishment for now. But still, he is breaking the APL2--and giving a
bad role model.

The things I particulary dislike about the APL2 are caused by too
restrictive terms (the fourth and fifth * of the APL).
"Good will" written in a separate document does not take these
restrictions away.
If the ASO decides that the APL2 is ambiguous or too strict in some ways,
they have to correct the APL2. Otherwise, the problem persists.